Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

you state obvious facts, but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion. the thread devolved into a discussion of what constitutes the midwest geographically, and missouri is almost always considered a part of the midwest. according to the us government, it is officially a midwestern state. not a southern state, not an "upland south" state, not a border state, not a transitional state...a midwestern state. your personal perspectives are fine and all, but they don't change the show-me state's designation as a midwestern state.

if you want to talk about southern characteristics, there is no doubt that southern missouri is full of southern influence. so are southern illinois, indiana, ohio, pennsylvania, and maryland. missouri was a border state during the civil war (as was maryland), whereas illinois, indiana and ohio were not-- you feel better now? that said, indiana still has overwhelming southern characteristics and in many ways even more than missouri. what you continue to ignore is the non-southern influence in missouri, which is every bit as noteworthy. so again, geechie, you have selective attention.

by the way, you may be surprised to know that maryland had many more slaves for a much longer period than missouri did, and missouri always had a much, much larger free black population than maryland throughout the civil war.

That's because Maryland's climate was more amenable to plantations crop than was Missouri's, at least until Dred Scott. In fact, Maryland only stayed in the Union because the Fed. Army was posted there to prevent it from leaving- as that would have cut D.C. off.

And like Maryland, Missouri also had a star on the Confederate flag in its honor, although neither ever truly joined the insurrection.

The sites I presented above (and the others) all showcase Missouri as a transition between Midwest and South. Some even place it (as others) in its own seperate region, due to the various cultural factors inherent.

Geographers/The Gov't/Anthropologists all bust-up the states into different regions based on different characteristics; The Fed Reserve, for example places S.C. in the same region as Md., and in a different region from neighboring Georgia.

That's one view, not THE view. It is not the end-all, be-all. Neither is the Census Dept, as far as georgaphical classification.

The funny thing is we are in largely in agreement:

The states you desribe above are transition areas between the regions.

But, as the site I quoited above says, the can also be construed to constitute a seperate region of its own- based on their uniqueness.

jacob lawrence's famous piece, the great migration, documenting the flooding of southern blacks to the northern gateway cities:

is that st. louis next to new york and chicago? couldn't be. look at all those southern blacks fleeing the oppressive south for...the oppressive south.

no one is refuting the fact that missouri draws influence from the south as much as you are refuting evidence that missouri also draws a great deal of influence from the north, east and west. you have classified missouri as an "upland south" state, but just about every official designation considers it midwestern. you have yet to face that reality. wouldn't it be just as accurate in your view to call missouri a "lowland north" state? if you are consistent in your argument, then yes. but you're not consistent in your argument. you have one-dimensional perception.

jacob lawrence's famous piece, the great migration, documenting the flooding of southern blacks to the northern gateway cities:

is that st. louis next to new york and chicago? couldn't be. look at all those southern blacks fleeing the oppressive south for...the oppressive south.

no one is refuting the fact that missouri draws influence from the south as much as you are refuting evidence that missouri also draws a great deal of influence from the north, east and west. you have classified missouri as an "upland south" state, but just about every official designation considers it midwestern. you have yet to face that reality. wouldn't it be just as accurate in your view to call missouri a "lowland north" state? if you are consistent in your argument, then yes. but you're not consistent in your argument. you have one-dimensional perception.

I have produced sites that showcase Missouri as an area of transition between Midwest and South; I have produced sites that classify Missouri (among other states in the area) as: 'The Southern Crossroads.'. I did not write those sites, nor collaborate in their formulation. I merely present them.

And yes, if you want to do an inverse and call Missouri a 'Lowland North' (although I'd be more in agreement with 'Lower North', ) state, then roger that.

It's the difference ( as I was once told on a another subject) 'Between a dark-brown turd, and a brown-dark turd.'

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.